…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A sterile worker contributes to the extended phenotype. Her copy of the hive genotype dies with her but she contributes to the survival of the genotype that passes down the germ line of mated queens.
Why am I getting a feeling of déjà-vu?
🙂
You’ve managed to convince me that I am a non-entity.
So obviously, all your children are geneticists.
So you believe in multiple designers.
Correct. Salvador is ignoring the dominance effect. I believe there is some mild anemia in heterozygotes though.
Yes, it will first decrease due to its deleterious effect in homozygotes, and then either disappear or settle into mutation-selection equilibrium
And now for the cool part: there is a point at which the sickle-cell allele WILL NOT rise any more in frequency, because the deleterious effect in homozygotes will start outweighing its benefit in heterozygotes. Natural selection is actively preserving BOTH alleles.
So which allele confers the highest fitness? 🙂
Working on it!
He seems to accept that traits can increase and decrease. For example, it would appear that being skinny is advantageous in keeping starving people alive, wouldn’t you agree?
Yes, exactly!
🙂
I think Allan even wrote that his only applied to asexual organisms.
Random physical and biological changes in the environment. Making natural selection itself in essence random.
Precisely. And that does not apply only to population genetics. I found Stephen Stearns saying something similar in my copy of “The Evolution of Life Histories” :
Well, that’s, in my view, a “why” question that science doesn’t attempt to answer. It does give an opportunity for theists to claim God”s mechanism for designing the Universe and hence the environments we inhabit.
It can be, but that definition is tautological. Some people see that as a problem others do not.
If you want to make the definition testable, then you need to come up with a special definition of fitness that is not tautological. Thus the many and varied definitions of fitness.
😀
When you say the definition is tautologous, I take it you mean that everything will be fit just in case it is fit. I don’t see why a definition that could be used all throughout evolution studies would have to have that defect. I admit again, though, that I’m not really the guy for this job.
Fitness is not context dependent unless you’re equivocating over the term. You seem to be saying that the concept of fitness is context dependent. Also, fitness has no power to effect change.
Yup. As soon as you take fitness out of the context of the mathematical framework in which it is defined it doesn’t mean that the concept is wrong, it just means that you’re equivocating.
Fitness is absolutely context-dependent!
What does Wagner suggest instead of “fitness”?
Which sounds a lot like Michael Behe!
These we define many of these functional systems in biology. Such as a metabolic system.
Krebs won the Nobel Prize for figuring this system (below) out. He spent a lot of his life working to see the architecture God put together at the molecular level.
Thus it is equivocatable.
I don’t know what that means.
Not sure why you quote this, Sal. Seems perfectly reasonable, especially WRT Homo sapiens.
Semantics, semantics. Don’t you think that Allan meant that the genotypic fitness values were context dependent?
But fitness variation does, right?
Which is why you should not forget the damn context Sal. How many times should I repeat this until you get it?
Many words are defined differently in different contexts. Sure, that means people can be mistaken, but tell them the context and they’ll get it. You seem determined to care little, if at all, of the context just to make the concept of fitness into a problem. You’re equivocating in spite of all these explanations. What makes you think that people who understand context will take your equivocations as a problem for evolutionary theory, rather than as a problem with your understanding?
Entropy,
How do you think the concept of fitness adds value to understanding biological diversity?
I find it amusing that some are arguing that its perfectly fine to have two definitions, one for math and one for the real world.
What exactly is the point of the math? For fun?
Its like playing sudoku, it gives you something to do.
Who cares if its empirical.
It explains how adaptations spread in populations.
Your illiteracy on display once again. You confessed that you don’t read, and before you’ve demonstrated that you’re illiterate. So there’s no point in explaining this more to you.
I tried to make it evident that I considered that explanation and rejected it.
I provided a fuller quote than I really needed to in order to establish that he was in fact speaking of the concept of fitness rather than the value.
That doesn’t make it worthless as a concept…
But I’m willing to hear what he has to say.
Neither fitness as a concept nor fitness as a value. Changes in fitness as a value are effects not causes.
It provides a flavor of scientific respectability. Any truly physical theory needs mathematics to back it up.
ETA: It’s known as “physics envy.”
I think people are making a mess by using the word “context” to mean both the framework in which the concept is defined, and the environment.
I think I might have made this mistake myself in one of my long explanations to Salvador, but no worth in checking, since Salvador is determined to equivocate either way.
There seems to be a lot of agreement in this thread. 🙂
More than I’ve expressed. Maybe we should insult each other to make sure it’s us.
You don’t say why, you simply repeated yourself. I gave a reason why the teacher ought to be more humble.
In addition to what I’ve said previously, any teacher who fails to acknowledge that her capability is a gift is ignorant and unworthy. Any teacher who fails to acknowledge that her knowledge came from others is ignorant and unworthy.
The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy
See Part VI. Chapter 28.
: The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy
: Chapter 28.4.1 Non-mathematical Fitness or Mathematical Fitness?
We have juvenile diabetes and cancer in mammals. Why didn’t selection remove it? Well, maybe it added reproductive “fitness” to the population. That is the thesis of Moelem’s book, Survival of the Sickest, why we need disease.
stcordova,
Is there anything selection can’t explain!
Of course not! We define Natural Selection as “The All-Powerful God That Can Explain Everything!” And we write everything referring to It, like pronouns standing for It, with capitals when nobody is watching.
Ups! Did I write that in public?
Sometimes I think these guys are close to understanding something being discussed, and then I see a howler like this:
and I am reminded it’s hopeless. SMDH.
No, they really don’t want to understand, and it’s a lot easier not to understand.
I guess I’ve occasionally hoped for a creationist or two, when they actually seemed to begin to ask questions that were actually inquiry, rather than attempts to confound the enemy. But it was a forlorn hope, as clearly one might want a bit of understanding here or there without actually wanting to know what’s real.
There are open creationists, of course, however they’re not the ones getting on the web and arguing about evolution. The latter are hopeless, almost to the very last person. In fact, I tend to like to see someone like Sal go YEC, because it’s so contrary to the evidence, and thus a grand exposition of how rotten the intellectual edifice of ID is.
One learns intellectual dishonesty and the use of its techniques in ID, then applies these to everything else. May as well believe in ancient alien technology, too.
Glen Davidson
All you have to do is read their comments to know that evolutionists are already confounded.
My Christmas gift to phoodoo and Mung (probably for other creationists too):
Christmas gift
P.S. Oh! Also for you Chava!
Why had nothing but marsupials migrated from Turkey to Austrailia?
– Donald Prothero
Ah, how quickly they are willing to abandon their “happy accidents” theory of the history of life! It was by fortuitous accident, except when it it silly to believe that it was by fortuitous accident. Evolutionists should beg Santa for a cerebrum. A cerebellum. Anything resembling a brain.
ETA: Merry Christmas you brainless zombies!
Mung,
Me no get it.